Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#52 Oct 11 2007 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
If this is, as I think you may be alluding to, some back door way to get Bush to commit troops to Darfur on presidence, it won't (or shouldn't) work, as this resolution doesnt in anyway define genocide nor define action to take against genocide.
That wasn't my intent at all. I just pulled the article to show that the word "genocide" has a specific gravity which other synonyms lack. It's not merely a question of "Let's pick an embarassing word!" as others have suggested.

I actually voted in my own poll against pressing the issue. But I think this particular attempt to pass the resolution is being taken out of context given past attempts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Oct 11 2007 at 12:48 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We have a definition of murder. In fact, we have legal definitions of different types of murder, the intent of the murderer, the accidental aspects of murder, etc. Why would we need to discuss a 3,000 year old killing?


For the same reason we'd need to discuss a 90 year old extended massacre? I.E. no reason?

Quote:
Hairstyles are a matter of national policy now? I knew that the Pubbie pundits cream themselves talking about Edwards' hair but I didn't realize it went this deep.


Descriptions of 90-year old events are a matter of national policy?

Quote:
I'd rather the government set benchmarks which allow them the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis although with an obvious foundation of precedent.


I'd rather we follow objective criteria rather than picking random historical anecdotes.

"flexibility" of the extreme form leads to:

People in the last 20 years before his death not writing resolutions about bringing Idi Amin to justice.

These same people writing a resolution criticizing the lack of bringing Armenian clones of him to justice 90 years ago.

And not pushing action on current Darfur very strongly.

Just more big talk, small action. If the resolution writers existed at the time of the Armenian genocide they'd be writing about massacres in the French-Indian War or something.

Quote:
Which is kind of funny because a House resolution on the exact same thing passed through the Republican controlled committee in 2000 against Clinton's objections. I suppose that was also a purely partisan attempt to attack the sitting president. Just like the 2005 attempt. And the 1989 attempt. And every other attempt.


Yeah, I'll fully admit my current bias against the democrat-controlled Congress and that it's probably influencing me on this issue. I just knee-jerk compare this meaningless, counteractive crap resolution to their pussying out on doing something real to stop the Iraq War.

I can't stand most republicans and Bush, but am quite dissapointed in the Democrats post-Congress control. If they were actually using their real foreign policy tools to affect foreign policy I wouldn't mind little **** like this. But as far as I can see they're ******* worthless. Too scared to throw a leash on a dog, so they nitpick him with flea bites.

As I agree with the post you posted after the post I replied to in this post I'll just split and simmer somewhere else.
#54 Oct 11 2007 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Interestingly, I can find attempts to pass resolutions in 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990 (same as '89?), 1995, 2000, 2005 and now 2007. Probably earlier as well but I stopped looking. Each time, the president has said "please don't" and Turkey has diplomatically saber-rattled and each time Congress has backed down at some point in the process. Resolution sponsorship and support has been bipartisan in varying degrees from attempt to attempt but it's never been a strictly Left/Right issue. Sometimes a Republican wrote the resolution, other times a Democrat. The resolution right now is in the same place the 2000 one was that Clinton asked the Republican controlled committee not to pass.

I just find it interesting how many times this has come up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Oct 11 2007 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

I just find it interesting how many times this has come up.


No kidding. I blame the dirty dirty Jews for drumming up all of this holocaust envy. If we could just get better at genocide we wouldn't have to deal with this ******** every few years. ******* incompetent turks.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Oct 13 2007 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Back in the early 20th Century, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) embarked upon a systematic program to kill or displace Armenians within its borders. By the end, around two million Armenians were killed and another half million or so were forced out as refugees. It's widely considered to be the first modern genocide. Hitler referenced it prior to World War II, asking "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

In that vein, the Republic of Turkey has historically refused to acknowledge the event as a genocide. They contend that there was no government program in place to kill the Armenians and that the Armenians died of famine, battle fatalities in World War I, the results of pockets of other conflicts, etc. You can follow the links if you're really interested.

Back in January, and just now coming before the House Foreign Relations Committee is a bill which states (in part):
House Resolution 106 wrote:
Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.
[...]
The House of Representatives--

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
The bill isn't a piece of legislature and can't properly be vetoed since it's merely Congress affirming that Bush should do these things and isn't binding.

Bush has been asking the House not to pass the bill. Or for it to even come before the full House. Not because Bush disagrees with it but because he fears that Turkey will retaliate since the Turkish government is very opposed to being told by the US that it was, indeed, a genocide. Turkey is a NATO member and major traffic point for the US to move supplies, fuel and equipment into Iraq. Bush, Rice & Gates have all warned that Turkey may make things difficult should the House pass the resolution.

Currently, the House Democrats still intend to present the bill before the House. Should they?
Should HR 106 come before the House?
Yes, the government should make a formal statement regarding Turkey's part in the genocide:12 (19.4%)
Yes, because backing down now is blackmail by Turkey:7 (11.3%)
No, the foreign relations risks aren't worth stating what most of the world acknowledges anyway:26 (41.9%)
No, the event is old news and not worth digging back up:17 (27.4%)
Total:62


Edited, Oct 11th 2007 1:28am by Jophiel



You left out the most important thing about the Armenian genocide. It takes attention away from the American genocide being carried out in Iraq, which is the only reason such a fuss is being made of it in America right now.

____________________________
Point made
#57 Oct 14 2007 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
You left out the most important thing about the Armenian genocide. It takes attention away from the American genocide being carried out in Iraq, which is the only reason such a fuss is being made of it in America right now.
You hear that, Gbaji? House Democrats only passed the resolution out of committee in order to distract us from the issues in Iraq. It looks like someone owes Madam Pelosi an apology and a big "Thank you"!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Oct 14 2007 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

It takes attention away from the American genocide being carried out in Iraq


Yeah, no.

When American's carry out a genocide you'll know. Telltale signs are that we name our sports teams after the nearly exterminated groups and later give them casinos to assuage our white guilt. When Harrah's Turkrit opens up, then you'll have a case.



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Oct 14 2007 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
You left out the most important thing about the Armenian genocide. It takes attention away from the American genocide being carried out in Iraq, which is the only reason such a fuss is being made of it in America right now.
You hear that, Gbaji? House Democrats only passed the resolution out of committee in order to distract us from the issues in Iraq. It looks like someone owes Madam Pelosi an apology and a big "Thank you"!


Partisan politics is for brainwashed morons who need to be programmed what to say and think before they can have an opinion or observe a fact.

There is a 'them and us' situation but it isn't Libs and Cons, it's politicians and the people they govern.

This particular Bush administration is repulsive but it is only an exaggerated form of the average American government.

The Democrats are better than the Republicans only in the same way that having your face slapped is better than being kicked in the balls.
____________________________
Point made
#60 Oct 14 2007 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
Partisan politics is for brainwashed morons who need to be programmed what to say and think before they can have an opinion or observe a fact.
Right. As opposed to knee-jerk "All politicans are EVIL!!! And anyone who thinks otherwise are SHEEP!!!!" screeds.

Well, I feel better informed Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Oct 14 2007 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
trembling wrote:
Partisan politics is for brainwashed morons who need to be programmed what to say and think before they can have an opinion or observe a fact.

There is a 'them and us' situation but it isn't Libs and Cons, it's politicians and the people they govern.

This particular Bush administration is repulsive but it is only an exaggerated form of the average American government.

The Democrats are better than the Republicans only in the same way that having your face slapped is better than being kicked in the balls.


I agree. Aside from acute decisions like whether to war or not, both parties have virtually identical platforms on most issues. Dramatised angst over supposedly disparate positions is invented by politicos or bought into by partisans, as in "the max tax rate should be 33%!!!!" "No, the max tax rate should be 28%!!!!" X 100 issues. Not much room for even minor revolution.

Possibly this is good as the two parties constantly move towards a real centrist position and argue over mere details of publicly-accepted policy. Possibly bad as partisan supporters are too engaged in vitriol over minor things to even realize that they'd prefer something else entirely.
#62 Oct 14 2007 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
Palpitus wrote:
I agree. Aside from acute decisions like whether to war or not, both parties have virtually identical platforms on most issues.


Well war and then: health care, state expenditures and rights, social/millitary spending and the prioritization thereof, abortion, *** rights, women's rights, family rights, what constitutes a family (or a woman, for that matter), racial relations and how to handle past transgressions and future corrections to that, etc

But yeah, except for the war thing they're identical!

____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#63 Oct 14 2007 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
Partisan politics is for brainwashed morons who need to be programmed what to say and think before they can have an opinion or observe a fact.
Right. As opposed to knee-jerk "All politicans are EVIL!!! And anyone who thinks otherwise are SHEEP!!!!" screeds.

Well, I feel better informed Smiley: laugh


There is nothing knee jerk about understanding how the world works or why politicians do the things they do.

One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.

In the meantime, I'm sorry if I upset you. Maybe the Democrats sell small plastic flags you can wave while posting. That might help ease the pain.
____________________________
Point made
#64 Oct 14 2007 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white

(On a side note and speaking of - I've been reading the biography of Strom Thurmond. Yeah that guy was just wrong on SO many levels. But in the early years not only did he follow the brutal and segregationist policies he was raised in, he also did quite a lot towards increasing the literacy and education of blacks in his county; moreso than any other county in SC at that time. Quite anachronistic but there you have it. Evil but... some good. Huh.)
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#65 Oct 14 2007 at 5:44 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Palpitus wrote:
I agree. Aside from acute decisions like whether to war or not, both parties have virtually identical platforms on most issues. Dramatised angst over supposedly disparate positions is invented by politicos or bought into by partisans, as in "the max tax rate should be 33%!!!!" "No, the max tax rate should be 28%!!!!" X 100 issues. Not much room for even minor revolution.

Possibly this is good as the two parties constantly move towards a real centrist position and argue over mere details of publicly-accepted policy. Possibly bad as partisan supporters are too engaged in vitriol over minor things to even realize that they'd prefer something else entirely.



The problem is that partisan politics in America is like a team sport with each side comprising moronic stereotypes that really don't benefit the country one way or the other.

You're either a limp wristed, Michael Moore loving, Jesse Jackson worshipping, politically correct, *** marrying, Moveon.org surfing, multi cultural wanting, immigrant embracing, metro sexual Liberal who is always apologising for everything America's ever done or you're a homophobic, Ann Coulter loving, Bible bashing, gun wielding, immigrant hating, xenophobic, jingoistic, Rush Limbaugh watching Conservative who thinks his nasty hateful policies constitute family values and anyone who criticises anything America does is a traitor.

There are very few intelligent, rational people in America who can think for themselves and make factual observations about the world around them based on actual knowledge instead of partisan brainwashing.

That combined with the fact that politics in America is totally owned by corporations and I’m afraid American politics is a joke as are most who have anything to do with it.



____________________________
Point made
#66 Oct 14 2007 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white

(On a side note and speaking of - I've been reading the biography of Strom Thurmond. Yeah that guy was just wrong on SO many levels. But in the early years not only did he follow the brutal and segregationist policies he was raised in, he also did quite a lot towards increasing the literacy and education of blacks in his county; moreso than any other county in SC at that time. Quite anachronistic but there you have it. Evil but... some good. Huh.)

Yeah, he did teach his illegitimate mulatto children how to read and write...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#67 Oct 14 2007 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
Debalic wrote:
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white

(On a side note and speaking of - I've been reading the biography of Strom Thurmond. Yeah that guy was just wrong on SO many levels. But in the early years not only did he follow the brutal and segregationist policies he was raised in, he also did quite a lot towards increasing the literacy and education of blacks in his county; moreso than any other county in SC at that time. Quite anachronistic but there you have it. Evil but... some good. Huh.)

Yeah, he did teach his illegitimate mulatto children how to read and write...


Nah, he never acknowldeged those mud puppies.

The rest of 'em, though, were good to go!
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#68 Oct 14 2007 at 5:49 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white


You make no sense. Having the mental strength to observe the world free from political bias is the opposite of seeing the world in black and white which partisan politics is all about.

____________________________
Point made
#69 Oct 14 2007 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
trembling wrote:
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white


You make no sense. Having the mental strength to observe the world free from political bias is the opposite of seeing the world in black and white which partisan politics is all about.


Which was precisely my point.

You seem to want to define the world in terms of those who identify with a platform and those "free-thinking smart people" who don't. You don't leave room for those that largely identify with a partisan political platform but can also see past it. You simply want to call them names and only see it one way.

Are you sure it's me that doesn't make any sense?
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#70 Oct 14 2007 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
There is nothing knee jerk about understanding how the world works or why politicians do the things they do.
There's nothing deep or insightful about deciding that your shallow platitudes cover politics either.

Come on now... "Those guys are all the evil machine" is crap most of us grew out of after high school. Maybe you can show your deep thoughts on government by spray-painting an anarchy symbol on a 7-11.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Oct 14 2007 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
One day you may gain the mental strength to be able to observe the world free from political bias.


Not that Joph needs me to chime in but... someday you'll realize that life isn't black and white


You make no sense. Having the mental strength to observe the world free from political bias is the opposite of seeing the world in black and white which partisan politics is all about.


Which was precisely my point.

You seem to want to define the world in terms of those who identify with a platform and those "free-thinking smart people" who don't. You don't leave room for those that largely identify with a partisan political platform but can also see past it. You simply want to call them names and only see it one way.

Are you sure it's me that doesn't make any sense?



Yes, it's you that makes no sense.

I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and not think in the black and white terms of political extremism, the exact opposite of what you're saying.
____________________________
Point made
#72 Oct 14 2007 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and not think in the black and white terms of political extremism
Yeah. We should avoid the black and white of "Those politicans are all the same". I agree. Anyone who'd think like that is obviously brain-washed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Oct 14 2007 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
trembling wrote:

Yes, it's you that makes no sense.

I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and not think in the black and white terms of political extremism, the exact opposite of what you're saying.


Really? I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and judge people on their own merit and not in the black and white terms of political affiliation or non-affiliation.

Hypocrite.

edit: or judge them based on their speelllingg. Oy.




Edited, Oct 14th 2007 10:11pm by Celcio
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#74 Oct 14 2007 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
There is nothing knee jerk about understanding how the world works or why politicians do the things they do.
There's nothing deep or insightful about deciding that your shallow platitudes cover politics either.

Come on now... "Those guys are all the evil machine" is crap most of us grew out of after high school. Maybe you can show your deep thoughts on government by spray-painting an anarchy symbol on a 7-11.



The only one talking about 'evil' politicians is you. Blithering about anarchy or 'evil' politicians is so embarrassingly clichéd, I feel embarrassed for you.

If you have an IQ in triple figures, are over 20 years old and don't understand what politics is, how it works, why politicians do the things they do or how the world works then there is not much I can do to help you, I'm afraid.

How's that flag waving going? Did it help?
____________________________
Point made
#75 Oct 14 2007 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Celcio wrote:
Well war and then: health care, state expenditures and rights, social/millitary spending and the prioritization thereof, abortion, *** rights, women's rights, family rights, what constitutes a family (or a woman, for that matter), racial relations and how to handle past transgressions and future corrections to that, etc

But yeah, except for the war thing they're identical!



Health care: Few democrats pound their fists in fury over the lack of universal health care. Few republicans do the same over completely privatized health care. Most are content to speak vehemently on their chosen partisan side every 6-8 months, then settle into minor debates over details of current care. Is it because they don't have enough support to win their agenda? I think more because it provides a nice apparent divide that they can use to win partisan support.

State expenditures and rights: Not too familiar with expenditures. State rights--*** marriage thing is the most obvious. No, I'm not accurate with this one.

Abortion: Just look at the presidential candidates. No republicans call for outlawing it, unless I missed one. No democrats call for allowing it in all circumstances. They just debate over partial birth and other nuances.

*** rights: Aside from its connection with state rights, the crux is marriages, GOP against, democrats for. That's been watered down into same-*** unions. But yeah, still is an if/or divide.

Family: Jeez, enough *** marriage examples, they're killing me.

Racial Relations: An occasional vehement support/denunciation of Affirmative Action, with the other 99% of the time ignoring it aside from EEOC details. Past transgressions and recompense--no serious Democrat is railing for that. The issue itself is fairly tepid though.

But the key word is "virtually", that is, of say 100 possible positions on a spectrum of radical..lance... the positions of the GOP and DEMs will be like 46 compared to 54. Not 20 compared to 83. The extremes of "enforced abortion after two children" vs. "no abortion ever for anyone in any case" just don't exist. Even extremes within "abortions okay except for partial birth" and "abortions only for non-rape victims" isn't that big. But my second paragraph questions why, I'm sure some is due to the majority of citizens agreeing with that limited spectrum. But in some individuals or some issues they'll greatly exaggerate that divide for effect.

Finally, if the divide were really as big as they make it out, more bills and more specific budgets and more presidential initiatives would be going forth (even if doomed to failure). There would be more daily speeches rallying public support, to reflect the importance of the issue. Instead our government is content to sit and debate trivial things and only occasionally give a sound bite for some "divisive" issue to remind people that, hey, this is really important and it sets me apart!

The public is left as one of two main entities: those that get riled over truly divisive issues but only during a campaign (then forget about it afterwards), and those who are keen to fall into the fake vitriol trap because they're partisan nutwads. The public may deserve this, but they also may be inculcated into this passive-aggressive behavior due to the behavior of politicians.

But my response might just be a bunch of *********

NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL!!
#76 Oct 14 2007 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
The only one talking about 'evil' politicians is you. Blithering about anarchy or 'evil' politicians is so embarrassingly clichéd, I feel embarrassed for you.
Likewise.
Quote:
If you have an IQ in triple figures, are over 20 years old and don't understand what politics is, how it works, why politicians do the things they do or how the world works then there is not much I can do to help you, I'm afraid.
Well, gosh! I better listen to you because I'd hate it if you said I was dumb and ignorant!

You're right! This resolution was created only to distract everyone from the civilian deaths in Iraq! Never mind the fact that few people actually have a clue about the resolution whereas death tolls in Iraq are nightly news. And never mind that Congress has been pressing the same thing since at least the early 1980s. This time, it was so no one would think about civilian deaths in Iraq!

It's no so simple! And now I don't need to be accused of waving a flag! Hooray!

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (66)